its only a minority here and not even a very prolific one which claims that there is *nothing* wrong with pirating. (ok, we can - and have - argued about that as well.)I guess my point is that I see these two standpoints being exchanged and neither is really a good reaction to the other. Nor do they actually contradict each other.

Another thing which is constantly being mixed up is "what is right" with "what is legal"... wizdum was not saying, that the 60.000.000$ sum that guy has been fined (or whatever it was) is illegal. He is saying it is not right (ok. whats the standard. no idea.)

I am sure wanderson would respond to AlexDroidDev: "well, it may be legal, but that does not make it right. (again. whats the standard)"

*

Just my thoughts when skimming over the last couple of posts...

I don't agree with your summary of wizdum's posts. He has said (among many other things) that since the DMCA declares him a criminal (which it doesn't) for removing DMA on media he has purchased he 'might as well just steal the media anyway.' I also disagree that there is something wrong with the system, in particular I find fault with claiming that since people are stealing it is proof that the system is faulty argument that he seems to be making. People commit crimes, that doesn't therefore mean that the laws which define those crimes are the problem...

And there is no need in the US to rely on a higher mystical authority to decide if something is right/just/fair, our society that creates its rules define such concepts. And our society has decided that such penalties are right/just/fair. In the US these decisions are made, ultimately not by corrupt politicians, nor the corporations that line the politicians pockets, but a jury of one's peers. We have jury trials for a reason, jury's have an obligation to not only determine guilt, but also evaluate the 'fairness' of a law.

New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

No one has been, and no one will be charged with violations of those laws for 'fair use' because all parties understand they would loose, so despite the stupid law they are not criminals

you hope. we have no guarantee of that.

Yes, but is a reasonable belief. As I mentioned in the previous post, in the U.S. we have jury trials. I find in unlikely that anyone in the U.S. would be convicted of violating the DMCA for what is also regarded within the law as 'fair use' (I frankly doubt anyone would be stupid enough to push such a case). But even if that happens, I find it very unlikely that a jury would convict.

Those fines are fair by definition. After all we don't let murderers, rapists, etc.. define what would be their fair punishment.

This I find questionable. I mean any fine is arbitrarily established. In Texas, I believe you have the death penalty. In most of Europe this is considered barbaric. I am not implying judgement here - I just mean to point out that even the way murderers and rapists are treated is open for debate. Saying a fine is fair by definition assumes that there is some higher moral authority who has the right to decide on what a fine is. I believe that is wrong.

Concerning fines for data-sharing, you can imagine that there are very strong political lobbies putting pressure on politicians. I do not believe that lobbyists who are trying to have stricter convictions for rapists have even a fraction of the power that lobbyists going after file sharers have. (before you ask... I dont know that as a fact. This is simply my assumption, as there is no group with an economic interest in prosecuting rapists.)[/list]

As a society, Europe has decided that things such as the Death Penalty are not fair. The U.S. has (at least the civilized parts of it The same is the case for these criminals who are claiming their punishment for theft is not 'fair'. Our society has established that it is fair. And unlike Europe (or at least Germany from what you told me), we have at least one more check and balance to ensure that 'fairness', a jury trial.

We have jury trials, because the system was designed to allow for jury nullification. A concept, where the judgement of your peers is capable of saying, "You may have broke the law, but we don't think the law is fair, so we are not going to let you be punished by that law."

New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

And there is no need in the US to rely on a higher mystical authority to decide if something is right/just/fair, our society that creates its rules define such concepts. And our society has decided that such penalties are right/just/fair. In the US these decisions are made, ultimately not by corrupt politicians, nor the corporations that line the politicians pockets, but a jury of one's peers. We have jury trials for a reason, jury's have an obligation to not only determine guilt, but also evaluate the 'fairness' of a law.

While i agree that trials by jury do give the possibility of a greater degree of fairness i would say that taking the position of letting the state decide your own definition of whats right/just/fair to be dangerous. It is true that for the most part a lot of laws are in line with what most people feel to be right but to say you don't need to think about it because someone else is for you is nothing short of insane. It is the responsibly of each individual to to decide these things. Government don't always get things right. It brings to mind war crimes and the defense that you were only doing what you were told. Having said that that excuse does probably wash sadly in most of the western world.You right people don't need to rely on anything mystical just there own brain.

yes, but the jury is set a "range" within which the fine is lega, no? As in, a jury cannot declare death penalty on speeding and is also given a recommendation by the judge? or am I wrong? (I really dont know)

*

about "something being wrong with the system:"

let me try to show you an example of what I mean

lets start with your statement that "piracy will not stop". I agree. Everything which follows is a result of that thought.

I think on a small scale, you will also agree to the consequences I personally draw from that:

I (as a recording artist) assume that people will copy my work anyway. I still want to distribute my music. I have two optionsa) I try to go to court with the people who illegally took my work. This incriminates my customers, so I think its not a smart thing to do. After all, I want them to stay my customers for a long time.b) I try to leverage the fact that my music has been copied so many times. I think this is the better choice, as it will not alienate me from my customers. I organize a party where my music is played or where I perform (with a door charge of course), I offer that anyone can bring a copy of my CD and for 2.50€ I sign it for them (I actually think this would work :-D).

As a small recording artist, I believe option b) to be 100% preferable. It is also preferable over having nobody stealing my music on the internet, as my music would never have become popular enough to do the event I described without file sharing. I see it as a win-win situation.

(this is actually almost a real life example. I recently figured out, that an old band of mine has become quite popular in poland, for reasons beyond my comprehension (enabled by illegal file sharing). Right now I am contemplating what to do about it.)

*

I think on the small scale my reasoning is obvious and there is little to dispute on that. On a large scale, I believe that we would all be better off if the creative industry also would find creative solutions to the problem of piracy.

I am not saying piracy is the creative industries fault.

Does that clear my standpoint up a bit, when I talk about "there is something wrong with the system" ?

While i agree that trials by jury do give the possibility of a greater degree of fairness i would say that taking the position of letting the state decide your own definition of whats right/just/fair to be dangerous. It is true that for the most part a lot of laws are in line with what most people feel to be right but to say you don't need to think about it because someone else is for you is nothing short of insane. It is the responsibly of each individual to to decide these things. Government don't always get things right. It brings to mind war crimes and the defense that you were only doing what you were told. Having said that that excuse does probably wash sadly in most of the western world.You right people don't need to rely on anything mystical just there own brain.

I didn't say the state (which typically means government) defines right/wrong, but that the society (the people) does. The problems only occur when there is a discrepancy between the two. Ultimately, the people who live under a government are responsible for the actions of that government without regard to the form of government (democracy, republic, dictatorship, etc...)

This is the key to why I am so passionate about this issue. A large portion of my society feels it is just to steal someone else's property (software, music, etc...) for whatever reason... Unless that can be changed, I don't have much hope for the society in general. I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.

New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

yes, but the jury is set a "range" within which the fine is lega, no? As in, a jury cannot declare death penalty on speeding? or am I wrong?

Yes and no, a jury is given guidance on such matters, but juries are not obligated to follow. A judge is able to 'reduce' awards, but I do not believe (and have never heard of a case) where a judge can increase awards. Further juries have the ability to nullify the laws by simply refusing to find guilt--something that happens all the time. If interested look up 'jury nulification'

New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

lets start with your statement that "piracy will not stop". I agree. Everything which follows is a result of that thought.

I think on a small scale, you will also agree to the consequences I personally draw from that:

I (as a recording artist) assume that people will copy my work anyway. I still want to distribute my music. I have two optionsa) I try to go to court with the people who illegally took my work. This incriminates my customers, so I think its not a smart thing to do. After all, I want them to stay my customers for a long time.b) I try to leverage the fact that my music has been copied so many times. I think this is the better choice, as it will not alienate me from my customers. I organize a party where my music is played or where I perform (with a door charge of course), I offer that anyone can bring a copy of my CD and for 2.50€ I sign it for them (I actually think this would work :-D).

As a small recording artist, I believe option b) to be 100% preferable. It is also preferable over having nobody stealing my music on the internet, as my music would never have become popular enough to do the event I described without file sharing. I see it as a win-win situation.

(this is actually almost a real life example. I recently figured out, that an old band of mine has become quite popular in poland, for reasons beyond my comprehension (enabled by illegal file sharing). Right now I am contemplating what to do about it.)

*

I think on the small scale my reasoning is obvious and there is little to dispute on that. On a large scale, I believe that we would all be better off if the creative industry also would find creative solutions to the problem of piracy.

I am not saying piracy is the creative industries fault.

Does that clear my standpoint up a bit, when I talk about "there is something wrong with the system" ?

For your scenario, as the copyright holder I have no problem with whatever you choose. In my own case, as a programmer, I simply make what I write 'open source' and sell my labor. That said, the industry has been making efforts to provide its paying customers with what they want--this is one reason that companies (Such as Apple, and Amazon) do exist that provide authorized copies of that media. The problem is that no matter what accommodation the industry makes the pirates (or some significant number of them) will continue their theft. This is why the examples where the IP is provided either very cheaply, or as a 'Try before you buy' are still stolen, almost always in greater numbers than what is actually purchased.

My point is that nothing the creators of the content can do will prevent the theft. The thieves are moral bankrupt and nothing about the system is what creates their theft.

New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.

Yes its a very the analogy is very succinct. Had to look it up, think i'll go back and read the rest of the wiki page. Don't really know anything about this era of American history beyond what i've gleaned from films.

I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.

Yes its a very the analogy is very succinct. Had to look it up, think i'll go back and read the rest of the wiki page. Don't really know anything about this era of American history beyond what i've gleaned from films.

Actually, Locke was one of yours (well and ours as well , from about a generation (or so) before the revolution over here.

New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

Ultimately, the people who live under a government are responsible for the actions of that government without regard to the form of government (democracy, republic, dictatorship, etc...)

This is the key to why I am so passionate about this issue.

Nice to see that you are a political ideologist as well :-)

*

I think both "Try before buy" and "providing very cheaply" are the wrong way to go about things. I think they actually almost encourage piracy. This is definitively not what I am suggesting. Rather, I am suggesting business models that circumvent the issue all together (like your example with paying for expertise and labor, instead of the software.)

Obviously, this works against companies like Microsoft and Apple. The reason for this is, that these systems ("alternative business models") are empowering to the individual, small entrepreneur (like myself) and detrimental for large companies. Which could mean that in the future we will see markets controlled not by one or two quasi-monopolies, but by a plethora of smaller companies (which, in my opinion would be a very good thing). Large companies feel threatened by this, and that is why they are pushing for protection of the current copyright and property system. Maybe it will work, but this is something I am scared of, because I am afraid it will lead to a society ruled continuously more and more by company policies than by actual democratic systems. I would rather live in a world where copyright completely fails, as I believe it to be the freer, more interesting and more progressive scenario.

The reason this is so relevant is that we are merely at the beginning. Right now media is becoming a "free" in the sense of none scarce (by my definition, not by yours, wanderson [just to be clear]) good. As a result we have DRM on media.

We are however living in a time, where its completely feasible to assume that in 50 years I might download my mobile phone and then print it out. [this is a discussion of its own, but lets not have it in this thread - happy to explore it in a thread of its own]. Same goes for clothing, furniture, tools etc. The implication of this is that people will be doing stuff like sharing furniture designs, sharing the perfect screw somebody developed. Uploading a cool tablet. Copying a gps-locator, exchanging the design for waterproof fabric which can breathe etc. etc.

If this happens - will we have the equivilant of DRM on objects? Will we have devices which only work when the correct person is holding it? Will companies be able to say "you are buying this, but may use it only on weekdays?" Will we have data-plans for our furniture? Will I have a screwdriver which only works when it is connected to the internet? This is all pretty f*ing paranoid. I know. But its a question of how much foreign control you allow in your life. And in this case I am strongly against control, because I think it will profit a select few, while having the potential of infringing on the property rights of most. (yes, I know - you where told about it in the small print ... but that's just not a good enough excuse to be living in a world I don't want to live in.)

On the other hand, I see the opportunity of amazing innovation and improving quality of life (especially in third world countries) in a world where there is more diversity in regards to developers and where data can be freely shared.

*

See - I too am a political Ideologist :-)

*

So yeah, I guess I just think its time for a bit of a paradigm shift. In a way I think the industrial period started an age of companies, factories and corporations. I think the 3d printer might end this period of human civilization. (oh ... see how I am going for drama? ... Imagine scary but bombastic film music in the background. Like from requiem for a dream or something :-D ...)

*

Some where you talk about "accommodating pirates" or something like this. I did not mean to suggest that is the right thing to do. What I mean to suggest is that you need a business system where you take advantage of the fact that you - personally - have the best distribution system at hand that the human civilization ever had access to. (I mean think about it. How awesome is this?)

ok. I am in the mood for drama I think. I could probably go on and on. I will leave it at that.

I would imagine that when we get to the stage that a 3D printer can print out a smart phone for example things will have changed. Even if you have the file for your phone for free from the internet legally or not you are still going to require the materials to put into your printer. This is where the money will be made, i predict that for a lot of things more money will be made on the raw materials than the objects them selves. I'm sure i read about open source cars,beer all sorts. By that point you could potentially have AI programs that could design you a car or any thing as easily as we now use simple web site design software. Also with music i see a movement from standard music to alogrtham based interactive musical environments. These would still be created by artists but would not be a fixed period of music such as we have now, so copying it would be pointless. (that last one still needs a bit of work). Obviously 'normal' music will always be with us just as classical is.

I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.

It is possible to have a societies where there is little concept of personal property so it is not a basic human right.

You have to pare things back to the bare bones of do most people feel morally wrong doing something.If they don't then do not let somebody pass a law that makes that thing illegal.By sticking to the principle of having laws that uphold moral views you will have good laws and avoid manipulation of the legal system for the benefit of a few.

What is regarded as moral will change with time and will vary from place to place and laws must be adjusted accordingly.

I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.

It is possible to have a societies where there is little concept of personal property so it is not a basic human right.

Perhaps that is only in your mind or in theory? Enduring successful examples in reality have been rather disappointing. I suspect human evolution will have to progress for many many eons into the future before that might even be a reasonable possibility. Without personal property rights human nature seems to fall all too easily into the 'they pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work' attitude. Only when human civilization has evolved where is requires no human non-voluntary work to function, will such a theory be possible in my opinion.Lefty

Polynesian culture has or at least had very little concept of personal property, and I believe there have been many others.So personal property is not an intrinsic human right or requirement.

It is possible to consider modern "Western" attitudes to property as a rather a destructive aberration that has got out of hand.Consider the fact that things like naturally occurring genes are being patented!Third world countries are reluctant to provide information about medicinal plants because they fear (probably correctly) that such knowledge will not be shared for common good but will result in patented medicines being sold back to them at high profits.